See also: IRC log
[WSDL Implementer's mintutes]
<TonyR> ACTION: Chairs to invite XFire to join this call per Tom Jordahl's suggestion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-ws-desc-minutes.html#action01]
<Jonathan> John has more testcases to contribute, will get them to Arthur.
<TonyR> Discussions of testing interop of the runtimes
<Jonathan> ACTION: Jonathan to look into how to create SOAP 1.2 services with .NET. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-ws-desc-minutes.html#action02]
<TonyR> Discussing the content and format of the interop meeting
<Jonathan> Scribe: jjm
[WSDL WG call starts]
? 2005-07-21: Pauld to write a proposal for a working group report for requirements for schema evolution following closure of LC124 ? 2006-03-30: Marsh to make XSLT improvements for RDF publication. ? 2006-04-20: Glen to flesh out a model for runtime test scenarios. DONE 2006-04-20: Jonathan to publish the 6-7 July Toronto date and see what reaction we get.
Marsh: back to weekly call since items are stacking up.
<scribe> ACTION: Arthur to prepare logistics page for interop event asap [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/11-ws-desc-minutes.html#action03]
Tony: no new items from implementors call.
Arthur: could members pls
contribute test cases?
... web page shows test coverage, pls see below (red means no coverage):
Arthur: you can see we're still
missing quite a few test cases
... there are no f&p test cases for example
Marsh: the status is to be updated, so pls ignore that part, but content should be ok
Jacek: indeed, and planning to move to last call asap
Marsh: any other comments? enough
time to review?
... any objection to publish as Last Call?
... publish next week; 17th July end Last Call
<Jonathan> reviews: SWIG, SWSIG, SWBP
<JacekK> reviews+ SAWSDL
Marsh: feedback from
... any actual use of f&p?
... also, submission of WS-Policy
... hence, do we need to do anything to f&p? Similar question for HTTP binding.
Arthur: HTTP binding very important. Lots of divergence in community. REST gaining momentum over WS (due to AJAX).
Marsh: we need implementations
Hugo: does Canon have an implementation of the HTTP binding?
JJ: a partial one.
Glen: Axis is REST compliant, so could be as well for WSDL 2.0, however need manpower
JJ: would still need a full, second implementation
<pauld> doesn't see a lot of excitement or interest in describing existing POX/REST services in WSDL 2.0, beyond DaveO's Yahoo examples. 'Resource' centric languages generate more interest, such as Marc Hadley's WADL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-http-desc/
Marsh: difficult to address this
issue now, need more data, maybe wait until after interop
... we could extract the HTTP binding and put it on a separate track
Arthur: Woden would be parsing
it; but we need runtime implemenation
... our first priority is to get SOAP working
Marsh: wait until after interop
... HTTP binding not marked at risk. Need to move back to CR?
... F&P: any new options?
Arthur: WS-Policy has been submitted, hence major obstacle has been removed
Anish: welcomes submission of WS-Policy (which we are a cosubmitter of); however, a little early to comment
Marsh: if a WG were to be created, this would substantially change your position
Anish: possibly; lots of discussions currently; certainly looking forward to WG being created
Arthur: a likely path is probably that a WG will be created
Marsh: ok for now, but at some point we will need a clear statement on HTTP binding and f&p
<pauld> doesn't understand the advantage of having F&P *and* W3C WS-Policy
Arthur: would like processing
time to be linear with large documents
... not so with schema currently (due, e.g., to chameleon includes)
... add a requirement that an extension must not change the value of components that are imported or included
... could also possibly restrict componence equivalence by restricting the depth
Roberto: no such extension
... do we really need to change the equivalence algorithm?
... would need more time to think about it
Marsh: let's move to other
issues, come back next week
... if no other compelling scenario, Arthur has presented compelling reasons for the change
<Roberto> +1 to Jonathan's proposal
Arthur: agree with suggested change
Marsh: any objection?
Marsh: changing to REQUIRED and making associated editorial change
Hugo: I thought had similar text already
Arthur: yes, elsewhere, but not here
Marsh: any objection?
Marsh: remove "if" and rewrite
... any objection?
No objection to adopting proposed fix
Jacek, Glen: the order of SOAP codes is relevant, so not a set but ordered list
Glen: linear nest
Arthur: not a set, but linear nest of subcodes, empty list makes sense
Marsh: hence issue is moot?
Arthur: text is correct but
probably not obvious
... nested subcodes, empty is meaningfull, editorial clarification
<Jonathan> The value of this property identifies one or more subcodes for this SOAP fault. This represents nested subcodes, the empty value is allowed.
<TonyR> or perhaps "..., an empty list represents a fault code without subcodes."
<Arthur> the list of subcodes is the nested sequence of subcodes
<Arthur> the empty list is meaningful - mean just the main fault code is present
Marsh: any objection to above fix?
<asir> +1 to Hugo, don't see any additional benefits in rewriting part 2
Hugo: part 2 is written differently from part 1, from functionality POV and not component model. Think OK as is, would be too much shuffling around also.
Arthur: no strong objection to not adopting this text.
Marsh: any objection to not adopt proposal?
Marsh: no time to address now.
Arthur: these were all part 2 issues. Hugo, will you address them?
Hugo: just realized this will be my last call.
JJ: can handle some issues
<asir> Hugo, we'll miss you!
Marsh: thanks Hugo for your hard work, and thanks for your new job
<pauld> bye Hugo, and thanks for all the fish!